The Worst Called Ball of the First Half
A lesson you learn as you grow older is that everything is somewhere on a spectrum. Though we yearn for blacks and whites, for certainties and absolutes, the world is more complicated than that, littered with partials and mitigations. Seldom does everything point in one direction. Seldom do we even know about everything pointing. There is always much we can’t or don’t figure out. There is a neat thing, though, about spectra — each one has two extremes. So when we know enough, we might be able to identify points near an extreme. The least-talented running back. The most challenging summit. The worst called ball by an umpire.
Strikes and balls are most definitely on a spectrum. The strike zone might be precisely defined, but it’s impossible for humans to call it that way, given our own limitations, which means any given pitch has a certain likelihood of being called a strike, and a certain likelihood of being called a ball. Most controversial calls take place around the boundaries. That area where taken pitches end up as coin flips. But sometimes there are bad calls beyond the boundaries, within or without. These head toward our extremes. Armed with PITCHf/x, it’s possible to find the worst called ball, by looking for balls on pitches down the middle. They’re uncommon, but they happen. What’s been the worst called ball of the 2015 first half? The following pitch was called a ball, though it was 3.0 inches from the center of the strike zone:
The worst called ball is worse than this.
The worst called ball, so far, was 2.5 inches from the center of the strike zone. I first identified the pitch using raw PITCHf/x data, and then I used the adjusted location information available on Brooks Baseball. I didn’t double-check every single pitch thrown, and sometimes PITCHf/x just misses a pitch here and there, so I can’t 100% guarantee this is the worst called ball of the first half, but I like its odds. 2.5 inches, from the most obvious called strike in the realm of called strikes. Estimate 2.5 inches with your fingers. It doesn’t matter how close you are. This is a pitch right down the pipe.
We get to go back to Tuesday, April 21, to a cool and windy evening in Detroit. At the time of this game, the Tigers led the Central, and the Red Sox led the East, and the Mets led the other East, and the Twins looked godawful. I suppose the date isn’t that important. Our game was started by Nathan Eovaldi and Kyle Lobstein. In the bottom of the second, with one out and none on, Eovaldi faced J.D. Martinez. A first-pitch fastball went for a called strike. A second-pitch fastball should’ve.
Or should it have? Watch the pitch. I’ve already biased you, because I’ve identified this as a terrible called ball. I’ve told you the pitch was 2.5 inches from the center of the strike zone. So you’re going into this with your mind made up, but imagine you were watching this live, without the assistance of Gameday. Would you have thought anything of the call?
Things that are immediately apparent: Brian McCann wanted a pitch low and in. Eovaldi threw the ball 96 miles per hour, and he didn’t hit his spot. He forced McCann’s glove back over the plate, and Martinez started to swing, then he thought better of it. McCann’s movements make the pitch look outside. Martinez’s movements make the pitch look outside. The off-center camera angle does nothing to help. But this isn’t an obviously bad call, by Will Little. It’s a sneaky-bad call, explained in large part by Eovaldi missing location. It isn’t easy to frame an off-target fastball when it leaves the hand at almost 100.
Yet, a screenshot, of the baseball somewhere around the front of the plate:
Let’s add a couple lines:
Nothing here should deceive. This is a picture of what actually happened. The ball is at the height of Martinez’s mid-thigh. It’s not directly over the middle of the plate, but it’s awful close. This is confirmation of the pitch being down the pipe, but because of the way it looked in motion, it’s hard to believe the baseball passed through this tunnel. Blame Little all you want, but McCann tricked everybody. Because he was initially set up here:
Sometimes, after a bad ball or strike call, the broadcasters will make a remark. After the pitch in the Twins/A’s game, above, Bert Blyleven said it looked like the pitch caught a lot of the plate. Announcers tend not to let those things go; announcers are thankful to have anything to announce. But here’s a full rundown of the Yankees/Tigers broadcasts. From Tigers television:
It was RBI number 11 for J.D., which ties him with Cespedes for the team lead.
[pitch]
Checked it, missed it outside. Martinez still second in the American League with his five home runs.
From Yankees television:
…when he came here and got hired to be the third-base coach for Ausmus, one of the first things he said to Dombrowski: “you gotta pick this guy up.”
[pitch]
“He can play.” And he had a great year last year.
From Tigers radio:
So if it’s a hard fastball, the slider’s in the 83-mile-an-hour range…
[pitch]
There’s a pitch outside.
From Yankees radio:
J.D. is 13-for-53, five homers, 11 RBI. Aaaaand it’ll be an 0-1.
[pitch]
Oh, outside, the count 1-and-1.
I also listened to the Yankees’ Spanish-language broadcast, and while I couldn’t transcribe it, there didn’t seem to be anything about the call. There was actually a bit of dead air. So we’ll call it five broadcasts, that didn’t think the call was in any way remarkable. Five broadcasts, featuring a total of more than five people. There weren’t any instant replays. Just an acceptance that the pitch was a ball, and that because it was a ball it must’ve been outside. This is the worst called ball in baseball over more than three months. It was a fastball. Nobody noticed. That’s the power of how a catcher catches a pitch. It’s not just umpires who get fooled. It’s everyone, because umpires are better at calling pitches than non-umpires are.
I think it’s safe to say Little’s call stands out, within the game:
There, you see the obviousness of the call. There, you see something borderline unforgivable. In reality, I think it was pretty forgivable. Can’t blame a human for being human.
So how bad did the call hurt the Yankees? On the very next pitch, Martinez singled. But he singled off an inside fastball, like what Eovaldi was supposed to throw at 0-and-1. And then the next batter ripped a line drive up the middle, but Eovaldi caught it, and he threw to first to double off Martinez and end the inning three pitches after the missed call. So nothing hurt, and nothing made sense. Maybe it was the universe rewarding Eovaldi for not complaining about the called ball. But perhaps even he didn’t notice how good a pitch he’d actually thrown. For the very worst of something, it sure didn’t make any noise.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Love this. Thanks.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Burt Bacharach!
Great piece. Why are MLB camera angles always so off center? It makes the lefty on lefty matchup look tougher than righty on righty matchups.
Basic tension between television people not wanting to waste part of the wide frame by overlapping batter and pitcher dead center (what they’ve been trained to do their whole career) and baseball people wanting the most direct view possible of balls and strikes. It’s worth noting that no camera angle is perfect as the dead center view makes it more difficult to judge the height of the pitch as the camera has to be positioned higher to see over the pitcher. I wonder if down the line as cameras get ever smaller, we’ll investigate something like having a gyroscopic camera mount attached to the top of the pitcher’s cap for the best possible view.
Broadcasters have been getting better about this over the past few years: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/with-new-angle-rockies-broadcast-camera-no-longer-worst/
You’re not going to want the camera on the pitcher’s cap. It’s going to add weight, which most pitchers will oppose. Also, pitcher’s heads jostle when they throw, so you’re not going to get a clear shot of home plate while the pitch is being thrown.
Fantastic stuff, Jeff. Watching the video, it definitely looks outside. A lot of it is the camera angle but there’s little doubt that the ump is fooled by the fact that Eovaldi missed his spot so badly.
You mean it looks outside based on where the catcher puts the target, right? Because I’m watching the same video, and in no way does the pitch look outside.
I see calls like this all the time. Maybe not calls this bad, but bad calls all the same. Though I agree that it’s not the biggest problem in baseball, let’s go ahead and mostly solve it with robots.
Thanks for summarizing the article Dan. Obviously it was a strike that appeared outside. It also very clearly appeared outside (unless you have special eyes that are never fooled by optical illusions). 🙂
is there like a way to look at a leaderboard of missed calls by umpires
This can give you something
http://baseballsavant.com/apps/umpires.php
oooooooo! Sounds like a new fantasy league!
Oh oh! Are you also going to do the worst called strike? I remember a fastball bouncing and being called a strike, that would probably be up there.
But these are always fun. And I agree, this is among the most completely excusable terrible ball calls I’ve ever seen. A bit reminiscent of that Scott Carroll start with the worst strike zone last season.
Without looking at PitchFX, this is my candidate for worst called strike. http://m.mlb.com/video/v231348383/miachc-motte-fans-bour-to-end-game-earn-the-save/?game_pk=414882
Really? That happens about five times in every game. Bummer that it was the final out, but that happens probably once a week.
Not even close to the worst. See Strike 3 call on Victor Martinez vs Twins on 7/11/15. Far worse call.
The last half inning of Chris Heston’s no-hitter has a month’s worth of horrible calls. If he didn’t hit Recker, I think the ump would have called it a strike.
That looks like a strike to me, or at least borderline. Am I crazy?
All the worst called balls of the first half were against the White Sox pitching staff.
Great article Jeff.
i am commenting because i enjoyed reading this article.
Will probably always be waiting for umpires to:
1. Not call anything near a strike if the count is 3-0, this isn’t little league.
2. Set up in a spot they can see the whole zone, or realize when they are set up way off the plate they need to compensate with their heads what their eyes aren’t in the right place to see.
3. Realize when the batter flinches or check swings they often miss pitches because of all the moving parts. Stay in there and focus through all that.
4. As in this example above, even if the C is set up way off the plate and the P “misses his spot,” so what?
5. Call balls balls and strikes strikes, PERIOD.
Again, it’s not little league, there is zero reason for them to not simply call balls balls and strikes strikes.
I am absolutely certain that UMPS are all calling balls and strikes as well as any human could. It is just that all humans are flawed. SO we either automate the calling of balls and strikes or enjoy the best humans om earth at calling balls and strikes doing their jobs as best as they can!
this
Kind of. But even if they are doing their best, so are the players and managers, and nothing is more tiresome than an ump running a guy for arguing balls and strikes.
Balls and strikes absolutely ought to automated, and the no arguing balls and strikes or you get tossed rule needs to go.
Imagine getting rid of the goal posts in the NFL and having a guy determine if a kick is good or not. And then if you show any emotion about the decision, you get thrown out for the remainder of the game.
I too am sure they’re human, but i don’t buy that it’s as simple as they’re trying their best. Yes, they are, but only in the context that these “basebally ways to umpire a game” remain “standard practice.”
I see the other responses and hear them, but no, umps don’t have to “let the batter decide his AB” on 3-0 or 0-2 pitches, they can realize they have this tendency to be looser on those counts and NOT BE.
Again, simple. Call balls balls and strikes strikes, period. Set up in a spot you can best see the whole plate, and when you just cannot, realize you’re set up way over one way and try harder to compensate for that in your call.
When a batter flinches, realize that often leads to them missing calls, and adjust, trying even harder in those moments to stay in there and look the ball all the way through.
I realize it’s hard, especially that last example of adjusting to check swings and the like. But as far as certain calls that relate to a sense umps have of “umping the right way,” bull. They do. not. need. to call almost anything a strike on 3-0, just do not.
“1. Not call anything near a strike if the count is 3-0, this isn’t little league.”
You do realize that this is an unconscious behavior. Umpires prefer not to be the deciding factor in an at-bat. The umpire would far rather the batter swing at a pitch so that the umpire is not part of the outcome. It is also know behaviour in baseball forever.
The reverse is also true. The strike zone for an 0-2 pitch is smaller than at other times. Again, the umpire would prefer that the batter be the author of his fate rather than the umpire.
As I said, this is unconscious behaviour. It’s not like the umpires are deciding before the pitch on what is going to happen.
I don’t buy that the whole “anything near is a strike on 3-0” thing is purely subconscious, and even if it is, it’s born out of a sense of umping that we don’t need.
They started that call due to little league games and wanting to get more swings and fewer boring walks, and that makes sense to promote the game at a level that could get really tiring due to kids’ lack of control pitching.
But why keep it up going up through levels of comp? There is no need to keep that up in the bigs, none.
It’s really simple, even accounting for umps being human, being prone to subconscious tendencies. Try your best to simply call balls balls and strikes strikes.
If the 3-0 strike for anything that is close to the zone is due to “wanting to get more swings”, how come the zone shrinks to smaller than normal for 0-2 pitches?
As I’ve stated elsewhere, umpire prefer not to be the deciding factor in an at-bat. This is subconscious behaviour because they are not thinking “Oh, this guy is 3-0 so I better call a strike here.” Like the majority of human beings, they don’t want to hurt anyone through their actions and so they avoid doing so as much as possible. The umpire prefers the batter and pitcher decide the outcome.
I’m sure that the vast majority of umpires do try their best to call balls and strikes. It’s just that it is a very difficult task and consequently it’s hard to be correct 100% of the time.
I, for one, will welcome our new robot strike-zone umpire overlords.
Those are my exact same thoughts. This is a clear example of a human doing as good as one possibly can given the circumstances and still messing it up. We have technology to prevent this, we should just start using it now instead of 20 years from now.
The worst called ball of the first half or The value of pitch framing.
MCcann just stabs at the ball rather than attempting to frame it.
this. missing your spot is bad enough, but it looks like mccann’s glove glides all the way across the plate and out of the strike zone, taking the ball with it. this is one of the most forgivable ball-that-should-have-been-a-strike i’ve seen.
Have you seen the strike—called a ball—thrown by Keuchel to Elmore in Saturday’s Astros/Rays game?
If it’s not the worst called ball of the first half of the season, it must have been very close. To my naked eye, and clearly to Keuchel, who took a few seconds to compose himself, it looked like a pitch very close to the center of the plate. Not up, not down, not inside or outside. Just about right down the middle. Unbelievable.
That umpire needed some Adderall to help him with focus, because the only way I can understand how he could miss that pitch is that he spaced out. And it cost Keuchel.
it was up.
still a strike, but up
I’m looking at the strikezone plots but not seeing anything that stands out as worse than either of the two pitches Jeff called out. Am I missing something? Maybe PITCHf/x did?
Keep these articles coming. There’s no reason for these calls to be missed day in and day out. Pitch framing is nonsense, it’s the equivalent of saying who’s the best flopper in the NBA – it’s not something that should be commended.
I would say pitch framing is the equivalent of an American making French toast and thinking he is now French.
I prefer francis’ analogy
Actually, an even better analogy would be an American making French toast, and then calling it American toast.
Actually, zee best analogie ees eef I flop after headbutting an American player in zee World Cup.
a real American would call it Freedom Toast
“There’s no reason for these calls to be missed day in and day out.”
Did you read the article?
First off, this was about one pitch amongst thousands that were thrown and this one objectively was the worst missed strike call. So there is only one of these calls.
Second, the bulk of the article looks into several reasons why it wasn’t called a strike including the velocity (makes it harder to judge location), the catcher setup location, and the catch itself.
Third and most tellingly, no one at the time realized that the umpire made a wrong call. No broadcaster did. Neither the pitcher nor catcher made any sort of action that indicated that a call was missed.
You might not like it, but pitch framing is a thing and it plays a role in baseball. This was clearly a pitch that was badly framed (through no fault of the catcher) and it lead everyone to think the ball was outside.
Umps miss over 10% of all ball/strike calls, so this is happening day in and day out.
And by your logic, why bother having foul lines or foul poles ? Just have the umps take a guess fair or foul. And don’t forget if you argue, you get tossed.
The game has always relied on non-intrusive instruments to determine borderline situations ( including bases and fences ). When the technology allowed for it, the instrument was used. The same ought to go for balls and strikes.
Well, given that umpires are expected to judge that a rapidly moving object falls in a specific area, 10% error rate isn’t too bad. Last night, I saw a slo-pitch umpire miss a call and that game requires the pitch to actually strike the mat to be called a strike. Calling strikes and balls is an incredibly difficult thing to do.
The foul line and foul poles are there to provide the umpires with something relative. If the ball is on the line or inside the line, it’s foul. It’s a lot easier to do with the line being there and much harder when the line isn’t there. Note with judging pitches, there’s no lines. The umpire doesn’t use the plate because he cannot simultaneously look down at the plate and look at the ball.
As far as automating the calling, I’m not necessarily against it. I’m just not sure that it is at 100% accuracy yet and it really needs to be really close to that to make it worthwhile.
Also, changing to automated strike calls will radically change the game. It will take some time for both pitchers and batters to adjust and it might distort the game records (much like the steroid era has made a mockery of offensive records). The gain would need to be sufficient to make the disruption worthwhile in the end.
I wonder about the amount of error in the pitch tracking. No matter how many times I look at that pitch, I can’t convince myself that it is right down the middle. It looks outside. Everyone involved seemed to agree at the time. Maybe it actually was a bit outside and the datum is bad?
It looks that way because eyes are flawed and the camera angle is well off center.
Umpires do an amazing job the vast majority of the time with balls and strikes. Borderline calls going one way or the other is understandable given their very nature but something right down the middle like this just shows that sometimes umps are not in the best position behind the plate to see the entire strike zone.
Because eyes are flawed and the camera angle is off you have no idea where the ball actually crossed the plate. The pitcher, catcher, batter, and umpire all seemed to think the ball was outside when it happened. Bad data is not an entirely crazy hypothesis.
I just don’t get this. It looks outside? How? Do you know that it’s the plate that matters, not the catcher? I’m sorry for th snarky question, but I just…I’m not understanding the multiple comments to this effect. This is like that white-or-blue dress photo in that I can’t believe we’re looking at the same thing.
It isn’t complicated. There is some amount of error in the software that calls the pitch location. I want to know how much.
Makes you wonder why Martinez didn’t swing at a straight fastball down the pipe in a 0-1 count. Maybe he cheated and was expecting the inside pitch, getting fooled by the (from his point of view) perfect location of the pitch.
Jeff, can we get some outrage satisfying GIFs of the phantom foul ball issue plaguing AJ Burnett’s last two starts. The one against Derek Norris was as bad as anything I’ve seen in a long time.
Shame they don’t use the direct CF cameras…as that pitch was brought to you by Miller Lite: The Original Light Pilsner.
¿Por qué no me entiendes?
This demonstration should get referenced in any argument in favor of switching to robotic/computer balls and strikes. A perfect example of human error where there doesn’t need to be. Great article, thanks.
Who taught umpires to stand directly behind the catcher regardless of where he sets up? As opposed to standing directly behind the plate. Umpires do not get hit by catchers just whiffing balls because they are set up inside, but the pitch is over the middle. The umpire in the above clip, is set up nearly a foot off the plate to the inside. How in hell is he supposed to call an accurate strike zone, when he is nearly set up in the right handed hitters box? The umpire should be discplined for setting up in such a blatantly horrible position to call balls and strikes.
I would assume the ump sets up as close to the catcher as he can to avoid being blasted by foul tips all the time.
I suspect that the umpire sets up where he does to prevent his view being blocked by the catcher. If he sets up on the edge of the plate, all he might see is the back of the catcher’s head when the ball comes in.
I think that because the catcher set up very inside, the umpire was forced to set up more inside than normal. It is this relative shift that caused the miss. The umpire saw a pitch that if he had set up in his normal location, he would call it a ball. Because of his inside position, it ended up being a strike. Basically, the umpire drew a mental strike zone that was shifted to the left because of his initial inside set up.
Basically, the pitcher made the greater error by so completely missing his target. The umpire’s error was caused by the pitching error.
I’m sorry but this is way too allowing. The ump has to realize when he’s set up way in or outside, and remember where the damn strike zone is.
I realize umps are human and it’s a tough job, but come on, there is a lot of cronyism and “doing things the right way” in baseball that don’t make sense, are unfair. There’s no need to defend them.
The zone is there for a reason. It is not up to umps to judge where the pitcher meant to throw it. Even if the pitcher “made a mistake” and missed his spot with the C set up way in or outside, if that mistake goes over the plate in the zone, it’s a strike, period.
If it’s 3-0 or 0-2 i don’t care for umps keeping ABs alive, call balls balls and Ks Ks. I don’t care if a pitcher has been “on” or around the plate all day or not, don’t help the rich and make it tougher on the poor by squeezing guys not pitching well and vice versa.
Yes, it’s a hard job, but it’s not the unconscious errors umps make that irk me, it’s the ones related to tradition and some archaic sense of “playing the game the right way.”
“The ump has to realize when he’s set up way in or outside, and remember where the damn strike zone is.”
The umpire is trained by countless repetition to call balls and strikes. They try to minimize the number of variables they are dealing with by setting up in a consistent location (on the inside edge of the plate) in the same position. This is so that they can concentrate of the position of the ball as it approaches the plate. With such a large inside setup, adding an offset to compensate for the setup makes the call much harder. The umpire has no choice but to move inside with the catcher. The last thing he wants to have happen is for the catcher’s head to block his view at the critical moment.
Oh and by the way, since PitchFx came around, there has been a dramatic improvement in reducing the number of missed calls. Most umpires genuinely don’t want to miss a call.
I don’t think this missed call was as bad as it looked. I see that the pitch clearly was above the knees and clearly caught a good chunk of the plate. However, McCann sets-up off the inside corner and the pitch misses the target by at least a foot. Umpires are human. If the glove starts in one location and has to move quickly laterally to receive the pitch, that creates the illusion that the pitch is outside. That’s what everyone saw: umpire, announcers. Even the players weren’t chirping that it was a terrible call.
I know it’s not technically right, but pitchers are rewarded for command and punished for lack of command. If a pitcher is just hitting the glove every pitch, he throws a couple fastballs four inches off the plate. Those are called balls, but he’s still nailing the catcher’s mitt. Then, they bring the target in two inches. Now, the pitch is still a ball, but it’s a lot closer to being a strike. It sails neatly into the web of the catcher’s mitt. Pitcher and catcher clearly executed what they were trying to do, and they get the strike call.
I don’t understand what this has to do with anything, and furthermore everyone reading this is already aware of this phenomenon.
It is the umpire’s job to call strikes strikes and balls balls, period. A computer can do an almost infinitely better job, so let’s get started on that already. Tennis is doing fine.
“It is the umpire’s job to call strikes strikes and balls balls, period. A computer can do an almost infinitely better job, so let’s get started on that already.”
Having worked as a Pitch F/X operator, you’re still dealing with quite a number of variables that could cause an error in the accuracy of the reading. This could range from software errors to a tracking camera getting knocked out of location. And you’re eyeballing the top and bottom of the strike zone from a screen.
So, there’s a human element there, too, plus the problem of computer/software errors.
Everyone reading this is already aware of this phenomenon.
It is the umpire’s job to call strikes strikes and balls balls, period and full stop. A computer can do an almost infinitely better job, so let’s get started on that already. Tennis is doing fine.
Oops, sorry for the duplicate. This one was an error both human and computer!
Thank you for arguing the exact reason why this still a problem.
The rule book states if the ball goes through the strike zone, it’s a strike. The various factors that trick an umpires eyes are not relevant to the rule book definition of a strike.
Of course, they are relevant to reality because humans are fallible. If the catcher sets up 3 inches off the plate and gets it right in the glove without moving… it’s not a strike. It’s impressive to witness pinpoint command, and umpires are many time fooled by this still… but its not a strike.
If the catcher sets up 3 inches off the plate and the pitcher misses by a foot but the ball crosses the plate in the rule book definition of the strike zone…. and as the above example illustrates it looks really weird and your brain can’t really conceive of how that could possibly be a strike because he missed so bad and the catcher had to fling the glove all the way across his body just to catch it…wow, awful command. But… … it’s a strike.
And yet none of the four people involved with the play thought it was a strike. All of them, umpire, batter, pitcher, all behaved as if the call was correct. Add to that none of the broadcasters commented on the missed strike.
Umpires being completely fooled aside, beginning several weeks ago I am sure that I saw a sea change in the way umpires call games. It is not the “expanded” strike zone, real though that is, which I am addressing. It is as if umpires got a final memo that they no longer had a personal strike zone, and their jobs depended on calling the same game that machines were calling. I saw four straight Red Sox games where the balls and strikes were called as if each umpire were the best in the game, and some of those boys definitely weren’t that. Even shitty umpires were calling accurate games. That implies that strike zones were created by individual umpires through years of negotiation between the bitching of hitters, catchers, and pitchers, but that most of them were capable of calling pitches accurately if they had the whip put to them. Maybe umpires heard the footsteps of electronic strike zones coming up behind them.
Automating the strikezone would lead to fewer of these joyful Jeff Sullivan articles to read! Don’t kill joyful Jeff Sullivan articles!
I, for one, very much appreciate your accurate transcription of Jon Sterling’s voice.
As much as all this bothers me, i don’t think we should go to computer umps. One computer glitch in a key moment would ruin things much worse than human umps do. And once we go down that path, well, better be sure and get it right, because there’ll be no fallback, the art of umpiring will be slowly fading away.
I’d like to see a challenge or two per game where using the computers (when they are working) to correct a human error is allowed. Again, should be simple, not take too much time. Every pitch viewed by NY and maybe by somebody in the booth at each game. As long as the tech is working, and that could be confirmed before each challenge, it’s simple: if the FX says strike, strike.